I'm reading "In search of the Indo-Europeans" by J.P. Mallory, and now I'm at the part where the narrative gets entangled with the Indus Valley civilization. I just realized I don't know much about that culture.

Are there any good books on the topic of the Indus Valley civilization, that provide the state-of-the-art knowledge, and are a good introduction to it?

I recently stumbled across the number of tanks the Germans captured in Operation Barbarossa. The Source: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 6, S. 787 (Germany and the Second World War - Volume 6). It lists the original source as: OKH, GenStdH Gen. Qu., 10-Tage-Meldung vom 25.3.1942, BA-MA, Wi/I F 5.1919.

Now the number of captured tanks was: 15 004 In contrast planes was: 1042 artillery pieces of all types: 27 814 MGs: 33742

I know that the Germans used quite many captured tanks throughout the war, but 15 000. I assumed it includes non-operational or something, but still, what did they do with them? I know the melted B-17s and other planes, but funnily I never heard/read about the melting of tanks. The only thing I know are companies of T-34, also units with KV-1s and even KV-2s (or various Czech, French tanks), but those tanks were rather limited in 1941, so the majority of these tanks was probably T-26, BT-5, BT-7, etc.

What happened to those large amount "lesser" tanks?

I am sitting here eating candy and it got me wondering if back in the past, let's say Roman times, what kind of candy people ate.

Would it be for rich people or was there a famous candy of the time; like a Snickers to us.

Thanks in advance!

What are the structural differences between the nobility of, say the 18th century, where they were legitimized by a pseudo authority like the Catholic Church, and the so called one percent, where they are legitimized by a pseudo authority like democracy governed by the rule of law.

In other words, legitimizing through "divine right" seems pretty absurd now. Whatever the shenanigans between the nobility and the Catholic Church to work that deal out certainly wouldn't pass the smell test today for most people.

But legitimizing through "democracy governed by the rule of law" smells fishy too - the shenanigans between the so called one percent and the rule of law (i.e. the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules).

Are there real structural differences or is this just an abstraction of the same old same old?

For as long as I can remember I was told Himmler bit down on a cyanide pill embedding in one of his teeth, but the other day I saw someone say he was killed by British Intelligence to silence any talk about Himmler's peace negotiations with the allies earlier. Is this true? Is there any hard proof?(About the killing, not the negotiations) and thanks!

I hear that brigandine was also very popular during this time, so was it more common to see, lets say a billmen, wearing a cuirass, brigandine, or just plain gambeson?

Was there any rhyme or reason for calling one side the "Allies" and the other side the "Axis Powers" during World War II? Because you could easily say that Germany, Japan, and Italy formed an alliance as well. What was stopping them from calling themselves the Allies? Is it just because they lost the war?

I just read the Preface and am currently reading the Prologue of this book and it struck me that the writing style was more like popular rather than academic history books. The author seems to be a respected academic, and the book is from Princeton University Press.

So my questions are:

1. Are the facts and theories presented in this book correct and thorough?

2. Are there any other academic books about this period or subject?

How gradual was this process? Was it under threat of violence? How were pagan traditons adapted into Christianity?

Or government, or have they always been minorities? If not, did they ever try to create one, during the growth of nationalist movements in the XIXth century for example?

I've found stuff about the steady territorial expansion of the early dynasties, but nothing about what kind of societies they were expanding into.

There seems to be a pattern that shows that civilizations (as for agrarian, urban-based societies consisting of vast congregation of people), appear first or predominantly around large river areas. The best instances of this being Egypt (the Nile), Sumer (Tigris and Euphrates), China (Yellow River) and the Indus Valley civilization in, well, the Indus. And the New World also had the Mount Builder civilization that inhabited the Mississippi and the Ohio, and, while being a poorly known fact, some cultures with complex art and craft and mound building architecture appeared around the amazon, such as the Marajoara culture. But then, as partly an Argentinian myself and familiar with the Rio de la Plata estuary and its long, large and complex river system, it struck me : why did no similar civilization apparently rose around these two rivers ? They seemed to fill all the requirements for such a society to appear at some point. In fact, the analogy between the Parana/Uruguay river system and the Tigris/Euphrates one stretch as far as the upper region being called the "Argentinian Mesopotamia".

Did some geographical or environmental factor lacked for such a society to develop ? Did the local Mapuche/Guarani tribes lacked the incentive to do so for socio-cultural reasons ? Or did indeed such a society rose, but the amount of evidences are still to scant, or the deep rooted and long lasting argentinian racism against its indigenous people, let alone the near disappearance of these populations due to European settlement and genocides hindered the recognition of such evidences ?

I have no idea if this is a true as serration to begin with. If it is, why were Muslim nations not crippled by tainted drinking water?

Yesterday in a post I read a few people writing that he was a racist pr**k and a misogynist, he hated the Africans etc.... Are there any documentaries/books/quotes that show that he was a really a racist? I have never heard of it, so I think you guys could help me know more details on the topic... Thanks

Generally speaking, would a racial minority in 1910 feel more discriminated against then one in 1930?